Posted on 06/25/2017 2:22:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Asset forfeiture "has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses."
In March the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a Texas woman fighting for the return of over $200,000 in cash that the police seized from her family. Although neither Lisa Olivia Leonard nor any of her relatives were ever charged with any underlying crime connected to the cash, the state's sweeping asset forfeiture laws allowed the authorities to take the money.
The Supreme Court offered no explanation when it refused to hear Leonard v. Texas. But one member of the Court did speak up in protest. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear that in his view modern asset forfeiture law is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Yesterday, one of the most influential federal appellate courts in the country—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—signaled its agreement with Thomas' assessment in a notable decision in favor of an innocent couple fighting for the return of $17,900 in cash seized by the police.
As Thomas explained in Leonard v. Texas, "this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses." For one thing, "because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture." For another, this sort of police abuse disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups. "These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings," he observed. "Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home."
To make matters worse, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court's previous rulings in this area do not line up with the text of the Constitution, which "presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, various procedural protections, and the right to a trial by jury. Civil asset forfeiture proceedings, by contrast, offer no such constitutional safeguards.
In short, Justice Thomas offered a searing indictment of modern civil asset forfeiture and called on the judiciary to start reconsidering its flawed approach.
The D.C. Circuit got the message. In its opinion yesterday in United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars in United States Currency, the D.C. Circuit repeatedly cited Thomas' Leonard v. Texas statement while ruling in favor of a New York City couple that went to court seeking the return of $17,900 in cash seized by law enforcement officials. Once again, the police took the money despite the fact that no underlying criminal charges were ever filed. But after Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland submitted a claim requesting the return of their seized money, a federal district judge ruled that they lacked standing, thus ending their case and leaving the government in possession of their cash. Describing the legal process that led to this result as "onerous, unfair, and unrealistic," the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court.
"The pair has a right to contest whether the money is subject to forfeiture," the D.C. Circuit held. "Despite the government's best efforts, this will remain an adversary proceeding." Now that their standing to bring suit has been recognized, Rodriguez and Copeland will continue their legal battle to get their money back.
Critics of civil asset forfeiture should be heartened by this ruling. Not only did it vindicate the legal standing of innocent people fighting for the return of their own money, it shows that the lower courts are starting to heed Justice Thomas' call to arms against asset forfeiture abuse.
FWIW, the late RJ Rummell credited the PRC(Mao Tse Tung et al.) with 76.7 million murders, USSR (Lenin, Stalin, et al.) with 61.9 million murders, and the Third Reich (Hitler) with 20.9 million murders.
His exhaustive study of genocide and democide is well worth reading and understanding. Most of what is considered ‘knowledge’ on the topic in popular culture is inadequate, inaccurate, and incomplete.
___________________
I had not realized Rummell had died.
To put a finer pint on it, these are deaths performed by the governments ON THEIR OWN CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS.
>”...this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution...”
Well, there’s your 1st hint. Maybe the Court should READ and adhere to the F* thing. We don’t need another @sshole, I mean interpretation\opinion, of plain English.
Yes, Due Process is just yet another victim of govt run amok. Glad someone had the gumption to point out the Emperor has no clothes; I didn’t expect much from the 4 big-govt justices.
>
Sue to get your own money back? The case was originally dismissed with a “no standing”ruling. No standing for your own assets???
>
“Own assets”?? The case was ‘The People vs. $17500’. No where did the names of those suing can up in THAT case; hence, no ‘standing’.
See, Leftist logic is easy /s
And, since A.F. has had a track-record, contrary to it being contrary to the Constitutions, it has ‘precedent’. That makes it doubly-legally good, y’know? No need to go back further than the initial ‘law’...
I don’t see how “ civil asset forfeiture” in cases like this where there isn’t even a conviction of the party to which it belongs is comparable with the 5th amedment.
Is that not a explicit example of being deprived of property without due process of law?
Or for that matter an example of the 2nd clause of private property being taken for public use without just compensation?
Maybe it is States that don’t have such a Constitutional restriction doing it. But Civil Asset Forfeiture laws on the federal level are explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. Only upon conviction of the party owning the property can you claim take it for public use.
5th amendment:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Three or four years ago, IIRC. The world would be a poorer place without his having been in it. He was a true rarity: an honest researcher in the field of Political Science.
The world would be a poorer place without his having been in it. He was a true rarity: an honest researcher in the field of Political Science.
___________________________
True, his book Death by Government opened my eyes in a way no other book did.
That makes sense - thanks for the info.
Mao, had them both beat, in terms of numbers. And Pol Pot would bet them all, if it were on a percentage basis. By the way, Hitler killed 7 million non-Jews.
Nope. Really? Some guy comes here illegally and works his ass off.... then send him home. But take his money too? Nope. I would never agree to that.
Hold ur horses.....Stalin was supported by the west (allies) before, during, AND after WWII!
Outlaw police from getting one dime. All seized asserts go to paying down national or state debt and only after conviction of a crime that proves the assets came from criminal acts.
So you like open borders.
Thinking the flight was about to be highjacked, I turned-in a nervous passenger to the pilot, via flight attendants.
Atlanta police found $100,000 taped to his body.
In Federal court, flight attendants testified that a drug transaction had occurred in the rear of the plane. I’d also testified. The CRIMINAL defense attornies’ questions revolved around the fact that
I was NOT an expert in drug transactions.
The money was returned—less legal fees— to the citizen of Columbia.
:-/
Sorry, but my Smartphone hides the “post” button after a few sentences.
This ‘asset forfeiture’ law legalizes armed robbery on the side of the road and any member of law enforcement who steals money from innocent people deserves what happens to them when people defend themselves from armed robbery.
The law be damned: it’s robbery under color of authority and if someone fights back against it then good for them.
This among other rulings is why he is my favorite Justice.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.